Exactly. The first question I would be asking is “but how do these strangers know so much about your children to be able to report them?”
Exactly. The first question I would be asking is “but how do these strangers know so much about your children to be able to report them?”I haven’t read the comments yet, I’ll look later. I just wanted to say this - IF she’s telling the truth re SS & and the NSPCC etc, the simple fact is that those children are in danger by their online presence. Whether it be danger from what she posts OR danger from other people reporting them.
However, it’s our job as parents to protect our children, so whatever the situation is and whoever is involved makes no difference. The responsibility for those six children lies with their parents. I’m pretty sure that will be the attitude of whatever agencies/ services involved inc school. So whilst the *troll* narrative might suit her needs for her followers. I’m afraid I’m real life, it really holds no weight.
You can not offset blame for your dysfunctional lifestyle on to people on the internet. Eventually you have to take some responsibility yourself.
Magazine or something is what makes sense to me too.The more I think about it, the more I’m inclined to think the girls have a story coming out in a magazine or something. She’s seems as though she’s laying the groundwork for a defence.
She’s tagging in lots of other influencers to make it look like she has friends in the industry.
She’s all of a sudden alluded that something may be up with Wibble.
She’s trying to place Vanessa as Lucy to wrongly illustrate it’s all Tattles fault.
She’s now saying her past doesn’t matter, when her version of her past has been the backbone of her time online.
PA Jo seems Awol.
The book is still 99p.
The Ads are for crap.
I don’t know obviously as no one has said anything, but if the girls have, using Tattle as a defence isn’t going to work. Once it’s printed elsewhere, the story becomes everyone else’s property, nothing to do with the Tattle Wiki or these threads. Interesting times.
I hope they are. I know some of those magazines are always looking for real life stories (I was approached as I found my long lost sister on Facebook but apparently that’s actually not that rareThe more I think about it, the more I’m inclined to think the girls have a story coming out in a magazine or something. She’s seems as though she’s laying the groundwork for a defence.
She’s tagging in lots of other influencers to make it look like she has friends in the industry.
She’s all of a sudden alluded that something may be up with Wibble.
She’s trying to place Vanessa as Lucy to wrongly illustrate it’s all Tattles fault.
She’s now saying her past doesn’t matter, when her version of her past has been the backbone of her time online.
PA Jo seems Awol.
The book is still 99p.
The Ads are for crap.
I don’t know obviously as no one has said anything, but if the girls have, using Tattle as a defence isn’t going to work. Once it’s printed elsewhere, the story becomes everyone else’s property, nothing to do with the Tattle Wiki or these threads. Interesting times.
Exactly. Nobody can ring my daughter's school because I don't publicise where she goes. I don't have my employer listed on Facebook. If someone doesn't know where I live they can't figure out my address from what I put online. It's not difficultExactly. The first question I would be asking is “but how do these strangers know so much about your children to be able to report them?”
The Inghams did the same with video footage of their childMy sister sends me videos/photos of my nephew throughout the day. Just random stuff of what he’s doing. Never once has she sent me videos of him playing with himself in the bath. Yes it’s natural for a child’s hand to go there but ffs give him a bit of dignity and realise he’ll be shredded for that video when he’s at high school
What has she said where she has admitted some things on here are true?The more I think about it, the more I’m inclined to think the girls have a story coming out in a magazine or something. She’s seems as though she’s laying the groundwork for a defence.
She’s tagging in lots of other influencers to make it look like she has friends in the industry.
She’s all of a sudden alluded that something may be up with Wibble.
She’s trying to place Vanessa as Lucy to wrongly illustrate it’s all Tattles fault.
She’s now saying her past doesn’t matter, when her version of her past has been the backbone of her time online.
PA Jo seems Awol.
The book is still 99p.
The Ads are for crap.
ETA: She also admitted that ‘some’ things on here were true. So effectively acknowledging it, without saying what it is.
I don’t know obviously as no one has said anything, but if the girls have, using Tattle as a defence isn’t going to work. Once it’s printed elsewhere, the story becomes everyone else’s property, nothing to do with the Tattle Wiki or these threads. Interesting times.
unfortunately it’s just not how they work. *We* all know that it’s common sense to not plaster your children all over the internet, but sadly there’s nothing to say that parents can’t do it. If SS had to be involved with every parent who put stupid, careless things about their children on the internet then there’d be nobody left for legitimate abuse cases.But why aren’t social services at least giving her advice? Like stop filming children without consent, stop telling the world your teenage girl’s location at 10pm, calm down the chaos? I know they aren’t grounds for removal or a CP plan but even so, you’d think they’d be having a little involvement.
I often wonder this too. Not that I’m knowledgeable enough to know whether her online behaviour warrants specific intervention but you’d think they’d at least encourage the stopping of the naked/nearly naked filming and uploading of the kids, as well as the general oversharing of information.But why aren’t social services at least giving her advice? Like stop filming children without consent, stop telling the world your teenage girl’s location at 10pm, calm down the chaos? I know they aren’t grounds for removal or a CP plan but even so, you’d think they’d be having a little involvement.
good point that i think has been lost… her life was a shit show before she became “instafamous”.Don't forget that she was being reported to Social Services long before she had an online following and associated trolls. But I'm sure that was all toxic, bitter, jealous and mentally ill ex partners and friends
Oh these trolls she also claims to know shes need flash cards herDon't forget that she was being reported to Social Services long before she had an online following and associated trolls. But I'm sure that was all toxic, bitter, jealous and mentally ill ex partners and friends
Em is awol tooThe more I think about it, the more I’m inclined to think the girls have a story coming out in a magazine or something. She’s seems as though she’s laying the groundwork for a defence.
She’s tagging in lots of other influencers to make it look like she has friends in the industry.
She’s all of a sudden alluded that something may be up with Wibble.
She’s trying to place Vanessa as Lucy to wrongly illustrate it’s all Tattles fault.
She’s now saying her past doesn’t matter, when her version of her past has been the backbone of her time online.
PA Jo seems Awol.
The book is still 99p.
The Ads are for crap.
ETA: She also admitted that ‘some’ things on here were true. So effectively acknowledging it, without saying what it is.
I don’t know obviously as no one has said anything, but if the girls have, using Tattle as a defence isn’t going to work. Once it’s printed elsewhere, the story becomes everyone else’s property, nothing to do with the Tattle Wiki or these threads. Interesting times.
Emily was on her stories yesterday filming close up videos of her mouth being really mature because a "troll" said she had put on a croaky voice for an advert.Em is awol too
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?